Herb687

A court ruled that the Barnes Foundation art collection can move to Center City Philadelphia. Sites along the Parkway are being considered for the new museum.

If this happens, this would be great for Philadelphia and turn it into even more of an outstanding art destination. However...

"Some art critics, however, have scorned the Barnes proposal as a naked attempt by Philadelphia power brokers to take control of one of the world's finest private art collections. 'Turning the Barnes into a tourist trap - Bilbao by the Schuylkill, a freak show for looky-loos - accurately reflects today's consumer-oriented cultural values,' Christopher Knight of the Los Angeles Times wrote. 'But it also would demolish the historical significance of the place.'"

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/10410171.htm?1c

slawecki

These guys complining are the ones who can get in. The private club of Merion.

A few years back, we got the next tickets available. Three month wait. only 400 admissions per day, and 2 days a week. No parking on the street(we got there early enough to park on the grounds).

Very few images available of the stuff.
No real studies available.

It is worth the trip, as it is an opportunity to see how bad some of the Monet, Renior, etc. stuff is. Most museums would not show the not too good. at the barnes, it is all up. lot of good stuff, but some amazingly bad also.

the move sounded like a done deal to me. Just waiting for final court approval.

Non-NonRev

What I don't like about this is that Dr. Barnes was extremely particular about how he wanted his art displayed - the juxtaposition of certain paintings with others, good vs. bad, all of that. I'm saddened that the trustees are ignoring what were so clearly his wishes, quirky as they might be.

Analise

I could not agree more. This move goes against EVERYTHING in Dr. Barnes' will. The ends do not justify the means. Every future donor will take note that once the donor is dead, the rules of the gift and the will itself can be broken for everyone's good.

Perhaps this thread will get greater coverage in Omni.

19103_aa

I am torn on this issue. I love the current environment and the quirkiness of the Barnes. I also think this sets a dangerous precedent for future wills and trusts. However, his original $10 million endowment is gone, his investment restrictions to low-yield bonds proved disastrous, and management mishaps led the institution to near-extinction.

There is a great piece in the Times today that tries to reconcile the two perspectives. Her take home message is that art doesn't really belong to anyone; it belongs to all of us. Keeping the Barnes "as is" was simply not viable.

Analise

I found that article patronizing actually. The writer views the decision to be "a triumph of accessibility over isolation, of art over the egos of collectors...." How obnoxious. The problems over the Barnes Collection are nothing new. Since I am not privy to the will, I have no idea if the problem of funding is due directly to the instructions of funding the collection. Is it better to focus on following the instructions of investing to the exact wording of the will or to wait until the funding runs out so the will must be broken in its entirety?

Barnes never wanted to show his collection in a museum. Thus moving the exhibition breaks the very foundation of the owners' wishes. Just because a collection is deemed great, it does not mean that this should override the owners' wishes.

Since when does Barnes owe the public a duty to show his paintings? If the foundation cannot afford to keep the paintings in Merion, then they have to be sold. There is no fundamental right to break the will because the ends justify the means.

Here's the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/15/ar...rint&position=

Here's the editorial in today's NYT which echoes the sentiments of the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/15/op...rint&position=

fastflyer

The testator intent issue is interesting.

Sometimes older wills are upheld with money (and lawyers) behind them: Isabella Gardner in Boston, for example. Doris Duke's Shangri-La in Honolulu.

Once the money runs out, the trustees give up? Maybe it's just unfaithful trustees. Ewing Kauffman wanted his trust to fund entrepreneurship in Kansas City; the trustees built an enormous complex. He had stipulated: No Buildings.

dgreen12

Yes, the thread is 7-1/2 years old and it's being revived to put the move into context.

The relocated collection opened up in May. I had lived in Philly for five years ('95-'00) and never had the opportunity to visit the collection at the "old" location.

The new location is on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway --- "museum row" in Center City Philly and is an easy walk (1.1 miles from my downtown Marriott).

$18 admission for adults, purchased in May for my July visit --- best to buy ahead since they were "sold out" when I showed up with my prepaid tickets.

My perception is that they recreated the interior galleries just the way Dr. Barnes had hung the works at the old location. Same room dimensions, same layouts, same everything, except a brand spanking new building housing everything.

Art overload to say the very least. My head still hurts from looking at everything.

There are two free apps (one itunes, one android) that can be downloaded to smartphones to save $5 over those rented at the museum. Bring your own headphones with your device.

The apple app seemed better than my android app (lots of android crashes). And I used up all the battery life in my Razr phone before finishing the rooms --- but by then my head was swimming anyway.

A great addition to Center City Philadelphia and an easy visit for most tourists.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/0...adelphias.html